Slashdot Mirror
US Army Scraps Comanche Helicopter
swordboy writes "The US Army just scrapped the Comanche helicopter program - a joint venture with Boeing and United Technologies. After 20 years and billions of taxpayer dollars, it never produced an operational helicopter. Open-source helicopter, anyone?" The article notes: "The Comanche is designed to receive and process intelligence from drones and surveillance aircraft and pass it to ground units. The Army was directed in 2002 to focus its research on producing a reconnaissance helicopter rather than one that can attack as well as scout. The helicopter was intended to counter Soviet weapons."
This isn't that bad of news for the Boeing company, just United Technologies. Because the US is no longer bankrolling the Comanche project, they will have to upgrade existing Apache attack helicopters over time. The Apaches are built by Boeing.
><));>
There was no civillian application for such a copter, it's weapons payload was dwarfed by the Longbow, which can carry racks of hellfires. What purpose did it have? It's operational radius is tiny compared to the unmanned recon vehicles, and with lo radar signature X projects being developed, the future was in remote control surveillance.
The lesson here is that design to deployment windows have to become shorter, when platforms take time measured in decades, that's just too long. Smaller, quicker, faster, cheaper.
The current Apache and (much older) Cobra Z revs. can do what the Army will be tasked to do over the next little while given the demise of the Soviet Union and the war on terrorism. So, why spend another 2 billion on a program that *cough*cough* B-2 bomber* cough*, no longer has a mission?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
We are way better off without the program. Most of our helecopters in iraq and other places( Somalia ) have been shot down by unguided rpg's. The Comanche was going to be a low radar signature helecopter. But how much good does that do when its 20 feet off the ground half the time?
"Cowardice in a race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin." --Teddy Roosevelt
This is probably a good move. Incremental changes in weaponry tend to have better long term pay-off than super-weapon development. Especially since most super-weapons are reliant on hundreds of untested systems. Plugging in upgrades to current systems and revising the platform as time goes on, allows failed systems to be backed out. With super-weapons, you have to throw away the entire weapon. (Hundreds of billions potentially down the drain!)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
It was discovered most of the Soviet Weapons were a bluff and it took this long to scrap the program.
No conflict of interests here, move along...
ob: In Soviet Russia, weapons scrap YOU!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The real irony is that "svoiets" no longer exist.
Perhaps they decided to cut their losses at this point, and just go with upgrades and maintenance on the Apache helicopters, rather than bank on the Comanche program somehow turning itself around rather than committing itself to an unknown amount of additional time and money to get the Comanche program deployed.
is this outcome the result of too many changes, suggestion, ideas etc throughout the years?
it's similar to software development. the first idea was pretty cool, then investors want their 'good' ideas to be included, then the 'testers' want their 'cool' ideas in that too, and nothing ever happens.
This happens all the time. Look, when the copter was first designed, it was the mid-80's and we were expecting twenty more years of Cold War or more. Then, in the 90's, we weren't sure how the post-Cold War period would play out. Or which technologies would work out and which wouldn't.
So after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we realize that drones are effective, useful and reliable. And cheap. So now that we have proof, we cancel the project. It would be more wasteful to cancel programs willy-nilly without a combat test of the alternatives.
If it's any consolation, most of the technological advances that went into the program (improved usability, reduced radar cross section, engine reliability, data aggregation, etc) are not lost. They'll find their way into other projects soon enough-- including drones.
Look, these systems take decades to finish. The whole time you're guessing about the future and what it will look like. Production is much more expensive than R&D usually (in the quantities the DoD buys in). So you do what you can.
The Paladin artillery system was cancelled for similar reasons. I'd rather have a weapon ready if it's needed then have to wait ten years to invent it. And I'd rather cut my losses if it turns out to be unnecessary than buy it just because I already have money on the table.
After all, how much of that $20 Billion went into basic research that will still be valid the next time someone wants to build a chopper? Wind tunnel data for example doesn't all of a sudden change without reason.
How much of that work led to new systems/ improvements to existing systems that either has allteady been deployed to other choppers, or can resonably be expected to show up in follow on versions and refits of existing choppers?
How much of that money was spent on basic science and engineering whose results will be applied thousands of times in follow-on development projects?
What about all the various lessons learned during the process of design to prototype, is that knowledge lost because the Commanche never went to production?
Lastly, the program was scrapped because the environment which dictated the original requirements is gone, and the new landscape tends to militate against a need for the platform as designed. Several people allready identified areas which ought to be addressed in follow-on designs. The choice to shut down the project as opposed to trying to re-invent it midstream is a money saver, not a money loser. The decision as easily could have been to impose new requirements on an existing project (cough cough B2 cough cough) extending the project by another $20 Billion, still with no production model at the end...
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Spending $2 billion to shut down the Comanche program is a lot cheaper than $38 billion to continue it to completion.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The A10 is more resilient, but planes are also much harder to hit than helicopters as they travel much faster.
Nothing to see here; Move along.
The Bradley was designed to fullfil two dual roles: armored personel carrier and light tank. It does neither well. For 1/10'th the cost of each Bradley, we could use improved M-113's and M-151 Sheradins.
Most people do not realize the magnitude of US military spending. Sure, we should have the most powerful military in the world. Maybe even spend more than the next 3 or 4 adversaries combined. But today, we spend more than the next 25 nations in the world *combined*. At the current rate of increase, the US will soon be spending more on its military than the rest of the world *combined*. That is, IMO, a bit too much.
Cheers,
Rob
The Comanche was a red herring. Our helicopters are great and a whole hell of a lot cheaper than the Comanche ever could have hoped to be. Hell, when my dad was flying AH-1J Cobras, the basic cost of a unit (without certain avionics equipment) was ~$800,000.
Personally, I think the Apache is overpriced ($25 million per unit), too. Remember in the First Gulf War, when they couldn't fly them because the sand damaged their engines? The Cobras flew in that, no problem.
The Comanche was a perfect example of feature creep, a bloated over-thinking of the helicopter's function as a weapon. The cost-per-copy, too, would simply have been too big a burden. Simple, durable, well-designed inexpensive weapons (like the Cobra or A-10 Warthog) are much more effective weapons than machines costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per copy, because if it is damaged--or if you lose one--it is far cheaper to repair or replace.
was a very similar story, and someone involved in the project wrote a book about it, and it was made into a hilarious movie called The Pentagon Wars with Cary Elwes and Kelsey Grammar. Had me laughing out loud! Alas, I have been totally unable to find this movie on any p2p networks. :(
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
First they came for Seawolf, and no one raised the alarm, for we knew the Soviet submarines were inferior.
Then they came for Crusader, for we knew that the battle field of the future would have no place for artillery.
Then they came for Comanche, for we knew that the future battlefield would be observed by drones.
When they came for Osprey we knew that our Marines could maintain antique helicopters better than anyone in the world.
When they came for Raptor we saw that the Eagle would always triumph over Sukhoi, even as the airframes passed the pilots in age.
And when the military was transformed, into a light nimble counter-terrorism and peacekeeper force the hordes of the Red Army descended on Taiwan and we realized our mistake, but there was none to counter them.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?
The Comanche is the poster child for enormous pork barrel government defense projects.
Maybe it's an awesome machine, but to spend $8 billion over 20 years and still not be in production is indefensible. It's only a helicopter. You can be sure that if the Army really needed it, it would only have taken a few years to start production.
Back in 1992, I was almost hired by Sikorsky to work as a co-op on this project. They already had an airframe back then. What have they been doing in the 12 years since then? Busy work to keep those multi-million dollar payments coming.
Beyond that, the experiences of the US military in Kosovo and Iraq suggest pretty strongly that the whole attack helicopter concept is flawed. They are too slow, too low, and too vulnerable.
Probably the whole reason the Army ever came up with attack helicopters is that they are forbidden to operate fixed-wing aircraft.
The reason we spend so much is BECAUSE the rest of the world spends so little. This might be considered a good thing. Do we really want another Germany or Japan giving us a run for our money?
IMHO, it's better to spend lots of money on a big army than to have tens-of-thousands die trying to take out the next dictator.
BTW, I think we should choose WHERE to spend the money a little better, but I'm fairly happy with the size of our military.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
The Commanche supposedly had a radar cross section about 66% less than the current scout helicopter (OH-58D--Kiowa Warrior). Actually, in its original mission--back in '83--stealth made sense. The Commanche was supposed to scout ahead of the Apache Attack helos, locate the Soviet armored formations in Germany, and relay this info back to the Apaches who would pop-up from their hide positions and start spewing Hellfire's at the Ruskies. In this role, having some stealth could have saved them from rapid annihilation by Soviet radar-directed gunnery (ZSU-23s) which always accompanied Soviet advanced formations.
Trouble is, in today's conflicts, a scout helicopter doing it's job is going to be taking all sorts of fire from guerillas or terrorists jumping out of cars and buildings firing RPGs, MANPADS, and automatic weapons. This was a non-issue in a big conventional war in Europe (or Korea for that matter). There's no way to be stealthy flying over a city. Apparently the rotor and engine design was also very quiet, so it might of had some advantage in urban and/or guerilla environments over existing choppers, but you still can't sneak up on anyone in a helicopter (Blue Thunder does not exist).
At $59M a pop, there was no way the Commanche can be bought (if Congress fights this, I'll be spewing email at my Congress-critters to knock it off). You can't pay that much (nearly as much as a JSF is going to cost) for something that as a previous poster pointed out can be shot down by some phanatic with a cheap disposable rocket.
The reason it has taken this long to kill Commanche is that Congress, despite their protestations against a myriad of defense programs over the years, doesn't like to cancel projects because the military procurement budget is the single largest jobs program in the Federal budget. Hell, for two decades they've been trying to kill the B-1 bomber and now they're trying to get the AF to put 21 retired aircraft back in service! It's also a matter of prestige and getting their slice of the procurement pie for the services--what will the Army do to recruit kids without cool weapons to feature in commercials. Plus there's been an unhealthy career track in the military for program managers--instead of fighting for a living, alot of military now do R&D for a living. If your project goes down, there goes you chances for promotion (and perhaps even that lucrative private sector job with a defense contractor).
What the Army needs are some new medium and heavy transport helicopters; something that can get up into the mountains easier in Afghanistan. They can certainly do with some new OH-58s, perhaps with beefier engines and more armor to enable them to take some hits and keep flying. The poor Marine Corps is still flying 40+ year old SH-46 Sea Knights that are only flying because of the herculean effort of Marine mechanics to keep them stuck together. There are a lot of places to spend that $38B that would both increase lethality of our military and better protect our troops.
The trouble is that helicopters, like so many defense systems, have just gotten too expensive due to a combination of gold plating, constantly increasing requirements, and reduced procurement. We used to buy thousands of an aircraft, now we buy hundreds. Stated another way, we used to buy Camrys, now we buy Porsches. The Commanche was the ultimate in gold plating of a project. Ask a pilot over in Iraq or Afghanistan what they'd like and I'm sure they'd tell us something that's rugged, reliable, and easy to fly (oh, and has modern anti-missile systems on board). I'm not saying stop buying Porsches when they're called for, but helos are not the place to be spending that kind of scratch. Take that 38 billion and you can completely upgrade all the current helo inventory with modern anti-missile systems and replace the oldest in inventory with new airframes so our kids aren't flying planes twice as old as they are.
--Len Quam
"Open-source helicopter, anyone?"
What was the point of that comment? Can you name me one "open source" helicopter that has ever succeeded in a tactical role, or did you just feel the need to slip that in there in order to feel more trendy here on slashdot? It's hard to suck-up to your audience more blatantly than that... Why didn't you just add "Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!" while your adding popular, yet ultimately pointless slashisms?
As far as the expendature goes, I'd rather them spend the money, even if it did ultimately fail to turn out a uselful end product. It's the cost of doing business when your looking for the ideal tactical advantage. Some will cost money and fail, while others, like the Tomahawk, Predator, F22 Raptor and JSF succeed. Don't get your panties in a bind, it happens. It sucked so they shut it down. And even in failure I'm sure they surmounted a number of engineering difficulties in designing the thing, stuff that can be applied to other projects that will succed because of Comanche's development. trying to stealth a helicopter has got to teach you something useful, which can be applied to existing helicopters.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Do we really want another Germany or Japan giving us a run for our money?
Or even a US giving us a run for our money?
South Africa was sanctioned for doing things the US is getting away with today.
Fran
:):):)
1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!
No it would be more like the German Air force having attack aircraft called Stalingrad or Maginot.
I do not profess that the results of manifest destiny on the native American population within the US borders did not result in atrocities. However, when properly armed native Americans were a formidable foe. Most nations respect formidable foes. Naming a powerful class of war machine after a former foe _is_ a way a military shows respect.
More of my thoughts
In building a suburb you chop all the trees down, killing all the birds, and yet the streets are named Bluebird Lane and Oak Street....
"The reason we spend so much is BECAUSE the rest of the world spends so little."
That is the silliest thing I've heard in a while. This old saw worked when there was a Soviet Union to at least maintain the pretense of holding up the other end of an arms race. There is really no good reason to run a race when you are the only runner.
When the rest of the world came to its senses and wound down the money they wasted on arms it was insane for the U.S. to accelerate its already massive defense spending. All of our weapons are a decade or more ahead of the rest of the world already. Most of these weapons are borderline useless:
- in a war against guerillas in the mountains of Afghanistan
- They work great against a feeble military like Iraq's except most army's have learned by now the best strategy is to melt away when the American's actually start their war and then pick them off one by one during the occupation when the only weapons the American's have that matter are body armor and M-16's. For all the money the U.S. spend the U.S. Army in Iraq has next to no real superiority over the insurgent army they are fighting
There are only a couple explanations why we keep up this massive spending, neither of them good:
- The U.S. government has adopted a policy of overwhelming military superiority which is designed to make sure no one will dare challenge the U.S. or attempt to start a new arms race because they will be so far behind. It might be OK if the U.S. had this overwhelming superiority if our government could be trusted to use it sparingly and wisely. Recent events suggest they can't be trusted. You may be concerned about the "next dictator" who dares to challenge the U.S. The entire rest of the world is gravely concerned about an out of control, dangerous, American President. In everything coming out of Russia in recent weeks it appears they are going to try to restart the arms race precisely because the U.S. never stopped and is now abusing its power at ever turn.
- Boeing and Lockheed, among others, are very dependent on this spending for their profitability. They require a continuing stream of these exhorbinant defense contracts to remain profitable. The fact is EVERY contract has massive cost overruns and is massively behind schedule because these companies are milking every contract for all they can get out of it. Since half the generals in the Pentagon take lucrative jobs at these contractors when they retire they have zero incentive to keep these contracts under control. These Defense contractors are also huge benefactors of the Republican's in particular and they get paid back a million times over for the campaign contributions. You just have to look at the sordid underbelly of the 767 tanker deal to realize the DOD is there primarily to transfer tax money to big defense contractors.
The big plus about all these defense contracts is they are a stellar jobs program, and defense jobs are among the very few which are somewhat harder to outsource than the average.
@de_machina